Tyler v. Mayo et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Clerk of the court shall not process the appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLY TYLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MAYO, deputy U.S.
Marshals, and UNKNOWN LEWIS,
deputy U.S. Marshals,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV167

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal. (Filing No. 22.)
On August 24, 2011, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and
entered Judgment against him. (Filing Nos. 10 and 11.) Plaintiff appealed. (Filing
No. 12.) On September 7, 2011, the court permitted Plaintiff to appeal in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 14.)
On December 7, 2011, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this
court’s Judgment. (Filing No. 17.) The formal Mandate was issued on December 28,
2011. (Filing No. 21.) On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal
currently before the court. (Filing No. 22.)
Because the court has already granted Plaintiff leave to appeal IFP and because
the Eighth Circuit has already dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal, Plaintiff’s Notice of
Appeal is moot. The Clerk of the court shall not process the appeal to the Court of
Appeals.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1.
Appeals.

The Clerk of the court shall not process the appeal to the Court of

2.
The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of
this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2